Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Mike1711]

You know not of what you speak.

Here is a snip from Wiki on how the US Supreme Court operates:

Oral arguments[edit]
Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.​

Obviously they may extend the time but your contention of how it works is wrong. Time limits are also customary at the appellate level.

So they're not cast in stone. So uncommon is it to stick to a time frame that a particular judge is singled out for his (strict????) enforcement.

What is enforcement if it isn't strict. Sort of enforcement? It's not like enforcement has shades....or does it?

As I said refer me to an Italian Legal Code which allows judges to set their own time frames. I will gladly bow to such information.

Customary??

 

[Bill Williams]

We had a case here where the appeal court invited the defence to present their brief less briefly, and IIRC it went into a second day. Tragicly the appeal ended up being denied and both conviction and sentence were upheld.

Why would anyone want to handcuff an appeals court to a predetermined set-time? Oh yes, justice never was high on some folks' list.

You'd be wrong, as anything that is signficantly over the time limit can be read by the judges in their chambers, which happens all the time.

Avv Bongiorno was monstrously over the time limit, causing prejudice to the other appellants.

"Monstrously"!? LOL!

What you need to first do, is cite the complaints of the other appellants that they considered their time insufficient.

Of course you cannot.

 

[Grinder]

So they're not cast in stone. So uncommon is it to stick to a time frame that a particular judge is singled out for his (strict????) enforcement.

What is enforcement if it isn't strict. Sort of enforcement? It's not like enforcement has shades....or does it?

As I said refer me to an Italian Legal Code which allows judges to set their own time frames. I will gladly bow to such information.

Customary??

First you claimed there was no time limit in this case. I provided a newspaper account that said there was.

Then you claimed that no sane court of appeal would have time limits and I show that even our Supreme Court has them.

It seems clear you have no clue.

 

[acbytesla]

You'd be wrong, as anything that is signficantly over the time limit can be read by the judges in their chambers, which happens all the time.

Avv Bongiorno was monstrously over the time limit, causing prejudice to the other appellants.

Other appellants? You can't be serious?

The time allowed for lawyers arguments is entirely at the discretion of the court. The judges can terminate a lawyer's presentation any time they feel that they have heard enough. They can also extend it by asking questions. Any effects that it may or may not have on other appellants is totally the responsibility of the court.

The duty of any lawyer is only to his client.

In other words, who cares?

 

[Numbers]

No court should limit time to the detriment of justice (filibustering aside). It is customary for cases to exceed expected time frames which is why adjournments are common.

The AK/RS Appeal was set down for one day. There is a lot of twenty minutes in one day.

Rebuttal?

It went on for two days which suggests whatever time frames were targeted were not met.

And that is common.

You are correct that I am not an expert in Italian Law, however common sense tells me that if a time frame of 20 minutes was expected it was a inadequate and the fact that the limit was exceeded says a lot about how set in stone this limit was.

It is common for judges to ask the attorneys how much time they require and it is common for that time to be exceeded.

If you need a definitive answer perhaps someone with more time on their hands than I have (npi) can point to the relevant Italian Legal Code which allows courts of appeal to put stop watches on appellants.

In the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), there is NO provision for time limits on the presentations of the prosecutor, the lawyers for the civil parties, or the defense lawyers, before the CSC in an appeal. Of course, there could be such limits set as a rule by the CSC, but I have no information on the rules set by the CSC itself. The CPP lists only the procedural laws passed by the Italian parliament. CPP Article 614 gives the procedure to be followed at the CSC trial as set by law; it regulates the order of presentation, but is silent on the allowed times.

It should be noted that, according to the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, there were presentations from 4 lawyers against Knox and Sollecito:

1. The public prosecutor, Stefano Maria Pinelli
2. Lawyer for Lumumba, Carlo Pacelli
3. Lawyer for the Kercher family, Enrico Fabiani Veri
4. Lawyer for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca

and presentations from 4 lawyers in defense of Knox and Sollecito:

1. Lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga
2. Lawyer for Knox, Carlo Dalla Vedova
3. Lawyer for Sollecito, Giulia Bongiorno
4. Lawyer for Sollecito, Luca Maori

 

[Vixen]

It's in the Oxford English Dictionary. You can now use it with impunity.

You're welcome.

I b'aint ne'er be using that thar 'informal US', young feller me lad.

 

[Vixen]

"Monstrously"!? LOL!

What you need to first do, is cite the complaints of the other appellants that they considered their time insufficient.

Of course you cannot.

Do keep up. I have mentioned several times PM Mignini has particularised that very issue, one of many, when he charged Raff attorney Luca Maori in May 2015 of all kinds of disreputable behaviour unbefitting a representative of the Italian courts.

 

[Vixen]

Other appellants? You can't be serious?

The time allowed for lawyers arguments is entirely at the discretion of the court. The judges can terminate a lawyer's presentation any time they feel that they have heard enough. They can also extend it by asking questions. Any effects that it may or may not have on other appellants is totally the responsibility of the court.

The duty of any lawyer is only to his client.

In other words, who cares?

The first duty of a lawyer or a barrister is to the court.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do keep up. I have mentioned several times PM Mignini has particularised that very issue, one of many, when he charged Raff attorney Luca Maori in May 2015 of all kinds of disreputable behaviour unbefitting a representative of the Italian courts.

It's hard to keep up with the malarky you are flooding the thread with. I'll try better.

 

[acbytesla]

The first duty of a lawyer or a barrister is to the court.

ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble & Scope
Preamble And Scope

PREAMBLE: A LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

[2] As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others.

 

[acbytesla]

It's hard to keep up with the malarky you are flooding the thread with. I'll try better.

It does get piled mighty high.

 

[Vixen]

In the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), there is NO provision for time limits on the presentations of the prosecutor, the lawyers for the civil parties, or the defense lawyers, before the CSC in an appeal. Of course, there could be such limits set as a rule by the CSC, but I have no information on the rules set by the CSC itself. The CPP lists only the procedural laws passed by the Italian parliament. CPP Article 614 gives the procedure to be followed at the CSC trial as set by law; it regulates the order of presentation, but is silent on the allowed times.

It should be noted that, according to the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, there were presentations from 4 lawyers against Knox and Sollecito:

1. The public prosecutor, Stefano Maria Pinelli
2. Lawyer for Lumumba, Carlo Pacelli
3. Lawyer for the Kercher family, Enrico Fabiani Veri
4. Lawyer for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca

and presentations from 4 lawyers in defense of Knox and Sollecito:

1. Lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga
2. Lawyer for Knox, Carlo Dalla Vedova
3. Lawyer for Sollecito, Giulia Bongiorno
4. Lawyer for Sollecito, Luca Maori

It will likely be in the ISC Practice Directions: ISC specific court protocol, which can vary depending on type of court, again separate from CPP, which is more a formalised broad set of rules.

Of course a judge has wide-ranging powers. The time limit probably is not specified anywhere. However, the Judge also has a duty to ensure a level playing field for each party.

 

[Vixen]

ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble & Scope
Preamble And Scope

PREAMBLE: A LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

[2] As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others.

Where does it say "a lawyers only duty is to his client"?

 

[Bill Williams]

Where does it say "a lawyers only duty is to his client"?

Here, the lawyer is an officer of the court, who with the other people so designated function - "in order to forge justice out of the application of the law and the simultaneous pursuit of the legitimate interests of all parties and the general good of society."

As such to my untrained ear it sounds like the duty is to the court, but the lawyer is required to take instruction from his/her client.

After that it gets fuzzy!

 

[acbytesla]

Where does it say "a lawyers only duty is to his client"?

OK , you got me. his/her primary duty is to his/her client.

 

[Bill Williams]

How many times has a mini-thread with one particular poster here simply wandered around with no particular rhyme nor reason?

You'd be wrong, as anything that is signficantly over the time limit can be read by the judges in their chambers, which happens all the time.

Avv Bongiorno was monstrously over the time limit, causing prejudice to the other appellants.​

Vixen was accusing Avv Bongiorno of purposely, maybe criminally, but certainly monstrously abusing her time privilege in front of ISC, with the alleged criminal ISC Section's blessing.

What happened after this whopper?

Other appellants? You can't be serious?

The time allowed for lawyers arguments is entirely at the discretion of the court. The judges can terminate a lawyer's presentation any time they feel that they have heard enough. They can also extend it by asking questions. Any effects that it may or may not have on other appellants is totally the responsibility of the court.

The duty of any lawyer is only to his client.
In other words, who cares?​

The highlighted part is perhaps not fully-technically true, yet by the time a lawyer is presenting at the ISC, one would hope that the lawyer is the one officer of the court committed to exercising that duty in favour of the accused! Is that really rocket science?

But no matter, there's no rail firm enough that cannot be run off of, when one is derailing things....

The first duty of a lawyer or a barrister is to the court.​

So? Duty One-A is to take direction from their client and advance their interests, while at the same time participating as an officer of the court. So far the exchange is, for practical purposes, meaningless.

ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble & Scope
Preamble And Scope

PREAMBLE: A LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

[2] As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others.​

This says it better. The non-issue should be solved. But was it? Please remember, this started as an accusation that Avv. was allowed a MONSTROUS amount of time at the Section 5 hearing......

Where does it say "a lawyers only duty is to his client"?​

Huh!? Did anyone claim that this strawman was true? Then again, what does it have to do with the alleged/implied conspiracy (above) that Avv. Bongiorno was allowed a MONSTROUS amount of time at the final appeal hearing?

Going for laughs,......

OK , you got me. his/her primary duty is to his/her client.​

...... which is simply a restatement of the truism that a defence lawyer's primary duty as an officer of the court, is to the accused. What is hard about that?

More important, what's this now got to do with Avv. Bongiorno having a MONSTROUS amount of time to facilitate that duty?

I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of those unanswered questions.

 

[acbytesla]

It's another revolving door of absurdity. Do we think justice was perverted because Raffaele's lawyer took 60 or 90 minutes instead of 30?

 

[Grinder]

In the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), there is NO provision for time limits on the presentations of the prosecutor, the lawyers for the civil parties, or the defense lawyers, before the CSC in an appeal. Of course, there could be such limits set as a rule by the CSC, but I have no information on the rules set by the CSC itself. The CPP lists only the procedural laws passed by the Italian parliament. CPP Article 614 gives the procedure to be followed at the CSC trial as set by law; it regulates the order of presentation, but is silent on the allowed times.

It should be noted that, according to the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, there were presentations from 4 lawyers against Knox and Sollecito:

1. The public prosecutor, Stefano Maria Pinelli
2. Lawyer for Lumumba, Carlo Pacelli
3. Lawyer for the Kercher family, Enrico Fabiani Veri
4. Lawyer for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca

and presentations from 4 lawyers in defense of Knox and Sollecito:

1. Lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga
2. Lawyer for Knox, Carlo Dalla Vedova
3. Lawyer for Sollecito, Giulia Bongiorno
4. Lawyer for Sollecito, Luca Maori

Thanks for the effort. The question of what law gave time limits was a red herring as no one claimed it was a law or part of the constitution. In Italy as here and elsewhere courts develop rules over time. The article on our SC related time limits were set because cases were being drawn out.

 

[Grinder]

It's another revolving door of absurdity. Do we think justice was perverted because Raffaele's lawyer took 60 or 90 minutes instead of 30?

If M&B had found the kids guilty and the court had given extra time to the prosecution would it be an issue for you? Would justice have been perverted just because the state was given a few minutes?

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for the effort. The question of what law gave time limits was a red herring as no one claimed it was a law or part of the constitution. In Italy as here and elsewhere courts develop rules over time. The article on our SC related time limits were set because cases were being drawn out.

The entire subject of the timing allocated to each lawyer is a red herring.

The CSC determines what that time is, and it may vary depending on the number of questions the panel judges have for each lawyer.

And a large number of questions may indicate the panel judges have a problem with accepting the points of an appeal just as well as they may have a positive reaction to the points of an appeal.

The "issue" of unequal time for any one lawyer indicating an unfairness makes as much sense as an "issue" of an unequal number of pages in any one appeal document indicating an unfairness.

ETA: For the motivation reports, the longer ones (Massei and Nencini) made little sense and were actually arbitrary, while the shorter ones (Hellmann and Marasca) actually made considerable sense, although they have some rough spots.

I don't know if the same applies to appeal documents.